Yeng & Sun (No 2) - [2025] FedCFamC1A 134

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 1) APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Yeng & Sun (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 134

Appeal from: Sun & Yeng (No 5) [2024] FedCFamC1F 702

Appeal number(s): NAA 333 of 2024

File number(s): SYC 8025 of 2022

Judgment of: MCCLELLAND DCJ, GILL & BRASCH JJ

Date of judgment: 31 July 2025

Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – RE-EXERCISE OR REMITTAL – Where the appeal was upheld – Where the parties filed written submissions as to whether the matter should be remitted or whether the Full Court should re-exercise power – Where the matter was remitted for rehearing before a judge other than the primary judge – Where the matter related to property

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79

Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) s 8

Cases cited:
Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172; [2000] HCA 40

Lane & Nichols (2016) FLC 93-750; [2016] FamCAFC 234

Marcin & Marcin (2020) FLC 93-956; [2020] FamCAFC 85

Sujatha & Gutierrez (2024) FLC 94-227; [2024] FedCFamC1A 223

Number of paragraphs: 12

Date of last submission/s: 16 July 2025

Date of hearing: Determined on the papers

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr Looney KC with Mr Stapelton

Solicitor for the Applicant: Longton Legal

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Reeves

Solicitor for the First Respondent: AHL Lawyers Pty Ltd

Solicitor for the Second Respondent: XR Consulting Pty Ltd (Submitting Notice filed)
ORDERS

NAA 333 of 2024
SYC 8025 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:
MR YEN

Appellant

AND:
MS SUN

First Respondent

MS HAU

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

MCCLELLAND DCJ, GILL & BRASCH JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

31 JULY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The matter is remitted for rehearing before a judge other than the primary judge.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MCCLELLAND DCJ, GILL & BRASCH JJ

This decision relates to the question of whether, following the successful appeal of orders made by a judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) pursuant to s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Full Court of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Yeng & Sun (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Yeng & Sun (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 134
Case: [2025] FedCFamC1A 134
Decision Date: 31 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Yeng & Sun (No 2) involved Mr Yen, the appellant, and Ms Sun, the first respondent, with Ms Hau as the second respondent. The appeal before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia's appellate division concerned the re-exercise or remittal of a decision related to property matters within a family law dispute. The parties presented written submissions debating whether the matter should be remitted for a rehearing or whether the Full Court should re-exercise its powers.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the Full Court should remit the matter for a rehearing before a different judge or if it should re-exercise its powers to determine the matter anew. The court also needed to consider the procedural fairness and the necessity for a fresh hearing to ensure that any potential bias or procedural errors were addressed. The central focus was on the appropriate course of action to rectify the issues identified in the original decision.

The Full Court found that the original decision was flawed due to procedural errors and potential bias, necessitating a rehearing before a different judge. The court concluded that remitting the matter for a rehearing before another judge was the most appropriate course of action. This decision ensured that the matter could be fairly and impartially reconsidered without the influence of the previous judge's potential bias or errors. The court's decision was made with the aim of upholding the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring a fair outcome for both parties involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

NAA 333 of 2024

SYC 8025 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BETWEEN:

MR YEN

Appellant

AND:

MS SUN

First Respondent

MS HAU

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

MCCLELLAND DCJ, GILL & BRASCH JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

31 JULY 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The matter is remitted for rehearing before a judge other than the primary judge.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

NAA 333 of 2024 SYC 8025 of 2022
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA DIVISION 1 APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BETWEEN:	MR YEN Appellant
AND:	MS SUN First Respondent MS HAU Second Respondent

Appeal from:	Sun & Yeng (No 5) [2024] FedCFamC1F 702
Appeal number(s):	NAA 333 of 2024
File number(s):	SYC 8025 of 2022
Judgment of:	MCCLELLAND DCJ, GILL & BRASCH JJ
Date of judgment:	31 July 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – APPEAL – RE-EXERCISE OR REMITTAL – Where the appeal was upheld – Where the parties filed written submissions as to whether the matter should be remitted or whether the Full Court should re-exercise power – Where the matter was remitted for rehearing before a judge other than the primary judge – Where the matter related to property
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79 Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) s 8
Cases cited:	Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172; [2000] HCA 40 Lane & Nichols (2016) FLC 93-750; [2016] FamCAFC 234 Marcin & Marcin (2020) FLC 93-956; [2020] FamCAFC 85 Sujatha & Gutierrez (2024) FLC 94-227; [2024] FedCFamC1A 223
Number of paragraphs:	12
Date of last submission/s:	16 July 2025
Date of hearing:	Determined on the papers
Place:	Sydney
Counsel for the Appellant:	Mr Looney KC with Mr Stapelton
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Longton Legal
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr Reeves
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	AHL Lawyers Pty Ltd
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	XR Consulting Pty Ltd (Submitting Notice filed)

ORDER MADE BY:	MCCLELLAND DCJ, GILL & BRASCH JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	31 JULY 2025